Kroer v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Parties | JOSEPH KROERv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Stephenson county; the Hon. WILLIAM BROWN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. J. M. BAILEY, and Mr. J. I. NEFF, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. JAMES S. COCHRAN, for the defendant in error.
This was an indictment for keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day and night, under section 127 of the Criminal Code of Rev. Stat. 1845. The defendant was convicted upon the first and fifth counts of the indictment, the first charging him with keeping open a tippling house in the daytime of the Sabbath day, the fifth with keeping it open in the night-time of the Sabbath day.
It is assigned for error--
1st. That the court below refused to quash the fifth count of the indictment.
The language of the aforesaid section, so far as relates to this offense, is: If any person, etc., shall keep open any tippling house on the Sabbath day or night, etc., every such person shall, on conviction, be fined, etc. The fifth count charges that the defendant, on the 10th day of March, 1874, the same being the Sabbath day, in the night-time of said day so being the Sabbath day, did unlawfully keep open a tippling house, etc. The objection taken is, that the words “Sabbath night” mean the period of night or darkness following the Sabbath day; that the period between midnight preceding the Sabbath and the dawn of Sabbath morning, is a portion of the night-time of the Sabbath day, yet it is not any portion of “Sabbath night,” whence it follows that the averments of this count may be true, and still the defendant be guilty of no offense under the statute.
We do not accede to the construction that this statutory offense could not be committed within that period of time embraced between the preceding midnight and the dawn of Sabbath morning. We think it might be, and consequently the objection fails. We do not consider that the averments in this count could be true, and yet there have been no violation of the statute. The motion to quash was properly overruled.
2d. That the court below erred in overruling defendant's challenge for cause to the juror Fowler. The juror, on examination upon his voir dire, testified that he had a feeling or bias against persons engaged in the business of saloon keeping; that he had a prejudice against the selling of liquors; that, notwithstanding this feeling, he could do the defendant justice--it would not influence his judgment; and further, on examination by the State's Attorney, that he had no prejudice or feeling against the persons who sell and are in the business; that it was the business; he had no feeling against the persons.
The juror's feeling of aversion was only to the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Defendant was not entitled to have a jury of such persons as entertained the contrary feeling. He might as well have insisted upon having a jury composed of persons holding lax notions upon the subject of the observance of the Sabbath day. It did not appear that the juror had formed an opinion of the guilt of the defendant, or that he entertained a prejudice against him. The juror was competent. Thomson v. The People, 24 Ill. 60; Leach v. The People, 53 Id. 311; Musick v. The People, 40 Id. 268. In the last cited case, one of an indictment for the larceny of a horse, a juror's admission that he was prejudiced against persons guilty of stealing horses, was held not to disqualify him.
3d. That the court erred in giving instructions on behalf of the prosecution, and in modifying defendant's instructions.
The court instructed, on behalf of the people, that, if the defendant kept a drinking saloon for the sale of ale, beer or strong and intoxicating drinks, by the glass or drink, and that Byron Goddard, John Schueller and Philip Schueller, or other person or persons, had free access thereto, and bought and drank ale, beer or other intoxicating liquors therein in the night-time of one or more Sabbath days, etc., that such is a keeping open of a tippling house, etc.
The following instruction, asked by the defendant, the court modified by adding thereto the words printed in italics:
And...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinkler v. Jenkins, 43392
...and the evening immediately following sunset on that day; and not the evening immediately preceding Sunday.' A contrary holding in Kroer v. People, 78 Ill. 294, cannot be approved, since that case would mean that Sunday has two nights. Instead we approve the contention of the defendant in t......
-
Coughlin v. People
...Ill. 311;Albrecht v. Walker, 73 Ill. 69;Thomson v. People, 24 Ill. 60;Collins v. People, 48 Ill. 145;Wilson v. People, 94 Ill. 299;Kroer v. People, 78 Ill. 294; Curley v. Com., 84 Pa. St. 151. If a juror's statement as to his own mental condition when he expresses his belief in his ability ......
-
People v. Elliott
...and the court may fix separate punishment upon each count on which there is a conviction. Borschenious v. People, 41 Ill. 236;Kroer v. People, 78 Ill. 294. This practice has been approved by this court rather than to require separate indictments for each offense. The constitutional provisio......
-
State v. Woodward
... ... from secular business and desecration by statutes of more or ... less severity. The great majority of people, whether members ... of the church or not, regard Sunday as a day of rest and ... peace and holiness, and approve laws to protect it from ... which the statute authorizes it to be open, as held in ... Monses v. State, 78 Ga. 110, and Klug v ... State, 77 Ga. 734, and Kroer v. People, 78 Ill ... So our ... conclusion is that we cannot hold as unconstitutional the ... first and third sections of the ... ...